alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 203/2017

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 203 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6027 June 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 203

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6027 June 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 203/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8479 — Advent International/Bain Capital Investors/Ratepay) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2017/C 203/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8479 — Advent International/Bain Capital Investors/Ratepay) (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 203/02 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2017/C 203/02

Euro exchange rates

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 203/03 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8538 — IFM/OHL/OHL Mexico) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 3 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2017/C 203/03

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8538 — IFM/OHL/OHL Mexico) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

3

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-07-354-CV

ELIZABETH A. ROHR	APPELLANT	

	V.

RALPH CRAIG SAUNDERS	APPELLEE

	----------

	FROM THE 211TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

	------------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	------------

	On May 14, 2008, we notified appellant, in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this appeal unless the $175 filing fee was paid.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).  Appellant has not paid the $175 filing fee.  See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

	Because appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court’s order of August 28, 2007,2 we dismiss the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

	Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:  WALKER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and MCCOY, J.  

DELIVERED:  June 5, 2008
June 2, 2015

Mr. Tony Santoro 3223 Crow Canyon Road San Ramon, CA 94583

Dear Mr. Santoro:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your May 8, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015- 1525), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

                    In the OTI Applicant Notice published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on March 8, 2007 (72 FR 10532) reference to the name of the ASBCO Container Sevices Inc. is corrected to read:                

“ASECO Container Services Inc.” 

Dated: April 6, 2007. 

Bryant L. VanBrakle, 

Secretary. 

 [FR Doc. E7-6859 Filed 4-10-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
Form of Series B Preferred Stock Certificate


 EXHIBIT 4.1 
 

 
 INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF 
 DELAWARE 
 NUMBER 
 SHARES 
 CHENIERE ENERGY, INC. 
 This Certifies that 
 Specimen is the registered holder of Zero (0) Shares of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock, $0.0001 par value per share, of Cheniere
Energy, Inc. transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in Person or by Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed 
 In Witness Whereof the said Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officers and its Corporate Seal to be hereunto affixed 
 this day of A.D. 
 , President 
 , Secretary 






 

 
 THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED PURSUANT TO AN EFFECTIVE
REGISTRATION STATEMENT UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED, AND MAY NOT BE TRANSFERRED, SOLD OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF UNLESS (i) SUCH DISPOSITION IS PURSUANT TO AN EFFECTIVE REGISTRATION STATEMENT UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS
AMENDED, OR AN EXEMPTION THEREFROM AND (ii) SUCH DISPOSITION IS PURSUANT TO REGISTRATION UNDER ANY APPLICABLE STATE SECURITIES LAW OR EXEMPTION THEREFROM. 
 THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE ARE SUBJECT TO VOTING AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS SET FORTH IN AN INVESTORS’ AGREEMENT, DATED AS OF AUGUST , 2008, COPIES OF WHICH ARE ON FILE WITH THE
SECRETARY OF THE ISSUER. 
 CERTIFICATE 
 FOR 
 SHARES 
 OF 
 ISSUED TO

 DATED 
 For Value Received, hereby sell, assign and transfer unto 
 Shares represented by the within Certificate, and
do hereby 
 irrevocably constitute and appoint 
 Attorney to transfer the said Shares on the books of the within named 
 Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises. 
 Dated 
 In the presence of 
 NOTICE. THE SIGNATURE OF THIS ASSIGNMENT 
 MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE 
 FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT 
 ALTERATION ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.
Before the First Division,

September 9, 1942

No. 47531.

#### Protest 66904-K of Austin & Co. (Tampa).

Opinion by

Oliveh, P. J.

The samples in evidence consist of clusters of small shells held together with short wires, the clusters being bound together with a green cord to form the finished articl'e. The ends of the wires are unfinished and no clasps or other means of fastening are attached. One of the items is described on the invoice as “Shark’s Teeth Shell Garlands” and the other as “Snail Shell Garlands.” It was established that the merchandise in question is composed in chief value of shell. The sole question before the court therefore is whether these articles are commonly or commercially known as jewelry. It was held, in view of the unsatisfactory record presented, that the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s action has not been overcome. The protest was therefore overruled and the action of the collector affirmed. *United States*v. *Barker*(17 C. C. P. A. 6, T. D. 43310) cited.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 20a0140n.06

Case No. 19-3219

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DONALD HOPE,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN 

DISTRICT OF OHIO

O P I N I O N

BEFORE: COLE, Chief Judge; BOGGS and SUTTON, Circuit Judges

COLE, Chief Judge. Appellant Donald Hope pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with 

intent to distribute mixtures containing heroin and cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 

841(b)(1)(C), 846, and 856. At sentencing, the district court imposed a sentence of 220 months’ 

imprisonment. As part of the plea agreement, Hope waived his right to appeal his conviction and 

sentence, except as to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, or that 

his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum. Hope now avails himself of his reserved right to 

appeal on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he claims that his attorney 

was ineffective for not arguing that the district court was required to apply the preponderance-ofevidence standard in making any fact-finding that would increase Hope’s base offense level under 

the Sentencing Guidelines and United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (1997). 
Case No. 19-3219, United States v. Hope

- 2 -

We typically do not consider claims of ineffective assistance of counsel when they are 

raised for the first time on direct appeal. See, e.g., United States v. Martinez, 430 F.3d 317, 338 

(6th Cir. 2005). Instead, to allow the parties to “develop an adequate record on the issue,” we 

normally review ineffective-assistance claims in post-conviction proceedings. United States v. 

Brown, 332 F.3d 363, 369 (6th Cir. 2003) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). The 

rationale for this practice is that “[w]hen an ineffective-assistance claim is brought on direct 

appeal, appellate counsel and the court must proceed on a trial record not developed precisely for 

the object of litigating or preserving the claim and thus often incomplete or inadequate for this 

purpose.” Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504–05 (2003). In short, to review an 

ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, we require a record from which we can comprehensively 

evaluate the performance of the counsel in question, and such a record is rarely available on direct 

appeal.

We are not persuaded that this is one of those rare instances. On the record currently before 

us, we are unable to evaluate the effectiveness of Hope’s counsel at the sentencing hearing to

determine whether his approach was constitutionally deficient. Accordingly, and without opining 

on the performance of Hope’s attorney at the sentencing hearing, we decline to reach Hope’s claim

at this juncture and affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 
 
 We hereby consent to incorporate by reference the inclusion of our report dated March 31, 2014, for the years ended and as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, related to the financial statements of Marathon Patent Group, Inc. (Formerly American Strategic Minerals Corporation) included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended December 31, 2013 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which appears in Marathon Patent Group, Inc.’s Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed on or about September 12, 2014.
 
 
 
 /s/ KBL, LLP
 KBL, LLP
 New York, NY
 September 12, 2014
 
 
 
 114 West 47th Street, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10036
212.785-9700
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 276 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the attachment therapy technique 

known as rebirthing is a dangerous practice and should be prohibited. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 18, 2005 

Mr. SALAZAR (for himself, Mr. BURR, and Mrs. DOLE) submitted the 

following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the attachment 

therapy technique known as rebirthing is a dangerous 

practice and should be prohibited. 

Whereas ‘‘rebirthing’’ is the most dangerous form of attachment therapy, a controversial and scientifically unsupported form of therapy that claims to treat emotionally 

disturbed children by using physical restraints; 

Whereas rebirthing techniques attempt to reenact the birth 

process by restraining a child with blankets or other materials and forcing the child to emerge unaided; 

Whereas rebirthing techniques are based on the erroneous assumption that a reenactment of the birth process will 

treat children with reactive attachment disorder, a psychiatric condition characterized by the inability to form 

emotional attachments, by purging the child of rage re-
2 

•SRES 276 ATS

sulting from past mistreatment and allowing the child to 

form stronger emotional attachments in the future; 

Whereas attachment therapists claim rebirthing techniques 

create new bonds between adopted children and adoptive 

parents and often use rebirthing techniques in therapy 

sessions with adoptive families; 

Whereas in 2000, Candace Newmaker, a 10-year-old child 

from North Carolina, died from suffocation, after being 

wrapped in flannel sheets, covered with pillows, and 

leaned on by 4 adults to simulate contractions, when 

Candace became trapped by the sheets because she was 

forcibly restrained by these adults and could not emerge 

through her own efforts to be reborn into her adoptive 

family; 

Whereas between 1995 and 2005, at least 4 other children 

in the United States have died from other forms of attachment therapy; 

Whereas the American Psychiatric Association, a national 

medical specialty society that focuses on the diagnosis, 

treatment, and prevention of mental illnesses, maintains 

that no scientific evidence supports the effectiveness of 

rebirthing techniques; 

Whereas in 2002, Paul S. Appelbaum, M.D., President of the 

American Psychiatric Association, condemned rebirthing 

techniques as ‘‘extreme methods [that] pose serious risk 

and should not be used under any circumstances’’; and 

Whereas several States have enacted or are considering legislation to prohibit the use of rebirthing techniques: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that— 
3 

•SRES 276 ATS

1 (1) rebirthing, an attachment therapy technique 

2 that reenacts the birth process by physically re3 straining a child and forcing the child to emerge 

4 unaided, is dangerous, potentially life-threatening, 

5 and unsupported by scientific evidence; and 

6 (2) each State should enact laws prohibiting the 

7 use of rebirthing techniques. 

Æ
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**855 CA 15-01911**  PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, AS PURCHASER OF GE CAPITAL RETAIL BANK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V ORDER
SHELLY FIUMANO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

DAVID M. KAPLAN, PENFIELD, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
FORSTER & GARBUS, LLP, COMMACK (VALERIE E. WATTS OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Ontario County (Frederick G. Reed, A.J.), entered August 5, 2015. The order denied the motion of defendant for summary judgment.
Now, upon the stipulation of discontinuance signed by the attorneys for the parties on July 1, 2016, and filed in the Ontario County Clerk’s Office on July 19, 2016,
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs upon stipulation.

Entered: October 7, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
# Official Journal L 128/2013

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.128.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 128 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 569 May 2013 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.128.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 128

English edition

Legislation

Volume 569 May 2013

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013 of 3 May 2013 laying down a performance scheme for air navigation services and network functions (1) | 1 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013 of 3 May 2013 laying down a common charging scheme for air navigation services (1) | 31 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013 of 3 May 2013 laying down a performance scheme for air navigation services and network functions (1)

1

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013 of 3 May 2013 laying down a common charging scheme for air navigation services (1)

31

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
# Official Journal L 149/11 J

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 149 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 4811 June 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 149

English edition

Legislation

Volume 4811 June 2005

---

| Contents | | I   Acts whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Decision No 854/2005/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 establishing a multiannual Community Programme on promoting safer use of the Internet and new online technologies (1) | 1 |
| | * | Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 amending Council Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 88/357/EEC and 90/232/EEC and Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (1) | 14 |
| | * | Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (1) | 22 |

Contents

I   Acts whose publication is obligatory

page

*

Decision No 854/2005/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 establishing a multiannual Community Programme on promoting safer use of the Internet and new online technologies (1)

1

*

Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 amending Council Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 88/357/EEC and 90/232/EEC and Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (1)

14

*

Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (1)

22

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                         19,106
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 151,449
<ALLOWANCES>                                    9,459
<INVENTORY>                                   103,725<F1>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              293,719
<PP&E>                                        158,668<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                 83,463
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                698,650
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         221,269
<BONDS>                                       201,158
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          13,984<F4>
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       89,822<F3>
<OTHER-SE>                                   (86,323)<F5>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  698,650
<SALES>                                       343,204
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              343,204
<CGS>                                         265,071<F6>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 265,071
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                4,829
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             24,665
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (19,656)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (482)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (19,174)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (6,249)
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (25,423)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (1.82)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.82)
<FN>
<F1> Represents gross inventory net of loss reserve.
<F2> Represents gross PP&E.
<F3> Represents common stock of $90,353 less treasury stock of $531.
<F4> Represents redeemable preferred stock of $24,000 less Guaranteed ESOP of
     $5,694 and treasury stock of $4,322.
<F5> Represents accumulated deficit of ($45,466) less minimum pension liability
     of ($3,135) less foreign currency translation adjustments of ($57,722) plus
     common stock warrants of $20,000.
<F6> Includes product development expenses and excludes depreciation and
     amortization.
</FN>



</TABLE>